Dig Withinhttps://digwithin.net
The blog of Kevin RyanSun, 04 Dec 2016 18:16:36 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://s2.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pngDig Withinhttps://digwithin.net
A Closer Look at 9/11 Legend Rudy Giulianihttps://digwithin.net/2016/11/26/giuliani/
https://digwithin.net/2016/11/26/giuliani/#commentsSat, 26 Nov 2016 16:38:14 +0000http://digwithin.net/?p=1244Continue reading →]]>Rudy Giuliani is considered a leading candidate for Secretary of State in the Trump Administration. Giuliani is actively campaigning for the position and could be named National Director of Intelligence if his appointment at State falls through. As the public waits to hear the verdict on these matters, a review of Giuliani’s history and qualifications is in order. In particular, his actions on and before 9/11 should be carefully reviewed.

As mayor of New York City on 9/11, Giuliani was in a unique position to benefit from the attacks. That’s because he gained national notoriety for his presumed valiant response that day, and he received the kind of publicity that every ambitious politician desires. Immediately after 9/11, Giuliani’s approval rating rocketed to 79% among New York City voters, a dramatic increase over the 36% rating he had received a year earlier. At a 9/11 memorial service, Oprah Winfrey called him “America’s Mayor.” And on December 24, 2001, TIME magazine named Giuliani its Person of the Year for 2001.

In the years since, Giuliani’s public persona has unraveled as he has attempted to profit from 9/11. It has been revealed that he did more damage than good during his tenure as mayor and there are many reasons to suspect that he might have been involved in the 9/11 crimes. Some of the reasons include the following.

He led enforcement actions against the terrorist financing network BCCI and then joined a law firm that represented that terrorist network.

In the years between the first WTC bombing and 9/11, Giuliani’s administration ignored problems with the NYC fire department radios. Those faulty radios contributed to the deaths on 9/11.[1]

He and his staff had foreknowledge that the WTC Towers would fall when no one could have predicted such a thing.

He was responsible for the destruction of critical WTC evidence.

He told people in the Ground Zero area that the air was safe to breathe, when it was not, in order to speed the removal of evidence at Ground Zero.

Giuliani has a family history of organized crime, and he hired companies linked to organized crime to clean-up the WTC debris.

Considering these things it is worthwhile to look at Giuliani’s past before looking at what kind of Secretary of State he would make.

The History of Rudy

Rudolph W. Giuliani was born an only child in 1944. Rudy’s father, Harold Giuliani (alias Joseph Starrett), was a convicted hold-up man who served time in Sing Sing prison and was later employed as an enforcer for a Mafia loan shark operation. Rudy’s uncle (his mother’s brother), Leo D’Avanzo, ran a loan-sharking and gambling operation with Jimmy Dano, “who was a made man.”[2] Additionally, Rudy’s cousin Lewis D’Avanzo “was a stone cold gangster who was shot to death in 1977 by FBI agents when he tried to run them down with his car.”[3]

Of course, the sins of his father and his uncle and his cousin should not be used to judge Rudy himself. Although Rudy was close to his family (he was actually married to one of his second cousins for 14 years). that doesn’t mean that he inherited the family penchant for organized crime. These connections to the mob are worth considering, however, in that Rudy hired mafia–connected companies to cleanup Ground Zero after the attacks. Additionally, Rudy’s friend and close colleague Bernard Kerik, whose police department provided crucial 9/11 evidence, was also linked to organized crime.[4]

Despite (or perhaps due to) his family’s background, Giuliani’s career soared from the start as if he had friends in high places. At the age of 29, after graduating from law school and working briefly for a judge in NYC, Giuliani was appointed as the attorney in charge of the cases resulting from the Knapp Commission’s investigation of police corruption. The indictments and convictions of NYC police officers that followed did not end the corruption however and, in particular, drug-related corruption continued unabated.[5]

Two years later, in 1975, Giuliani was named Associate Deputy Attorney General and chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Harold Tyler. A former judge from the Southern District of New York (SDNY), Tyler was the original choice to be the Watergate special prosecutor but he rejected the position. He was then brought into the Ford Administration, along with his young chief of staff Giuliani, specifically to restore the public trust after Watergate. Giuliani worked with Ford Administration officials, including Ford’s chief of staff Dick Cheney, during this time. As early as May 1976, Rudy was warning about domestic terrorism and recommending that intelligence collection policies be relaxed.[6]

In 1981, Reagan appointed Giuliani Associate Attorney General, the third-highest position in the Department of Justice. In this position he supervised several law enforcement agencies including the Department of Corrections and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Journalist Gary Webb reported that the DEA protected Norwin Meneses during this time while Meneses ran cocaine into the United States to fund the Nicaraguan Contras.[7]

While Giuliani was in the Justice department, he chaired a committee that provided oversight to the government’s use of a software called PROMIS. A database integration program, PROMIS was used by Oliver North to track terrorist threats and may have evolved into a tool for deep state uses.[8] The software was a precursor of tools used today for mass surveillance.

Giuliani was appointed U.S. Attorney for SDNY in 1983. It was in this position that he first gained national prominence by prosecuting high-profile cases, including those of Wall Street figures Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken. As the U.S. attorney for the SDNY, from 1983 to 1989, Giuliani was not only handling drug and organized crime cases he was in charge of representing the Federal Reserve Bank in its enforcement actions against the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). These actions led to a RICO plea agreement and forfeiture of BCCI’s United States assets, valued at $550 million.[9] It was reported that Giuliani received documents during this time, about secret bank accounts related to terrorist financing that were held by companies like Citibank, Barclays, Credit Lyonnais, and the Japanese company Nomura.[10]

During Giuliani’s tenure at the Department of Justice in the 1980s, Kamal Adham and other high-level Saudis behind BCCI were allowed to gain control of several American financial institutions. BCCI was subsequently allowed to continue funding terrorism, without being prosecuted, for many years.[11]

Giuliani remained in the U.S. attorney position until January 1989, resigning at the end of the Reagan Administration. He then joined the law firm White & Case in NYC as a partner.

While working at White & Case, Giuliani ran for mayor of NYC in the 1989 election. In that failed campaign, it was revealed that Giuliani’s firm represented the Panamanian dictator and colleague of President George H.W. Bush, Manuel Noriega. Author Russ Baker stated that Bush, “as Ford’s CIA director and then as Reagan’s vice president, had fostered a relationship with the notorious drug trafficker [Noriega] during the seventies and eighties, even keeping him on the payroll at more than a hundred thousand dollars a year.”[12]

At the time, White & Case also had an office in Saudi Arabia. What is less well reported is that Giuliani’s firm represented not only Manuel Noriega but also represented BCCI, which was funded by powerful royals in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.[13] This should be of concern considering that “BCCI was the mother and father of terrorist financing operations.”[14]

Another fact of concern is that Giuliani’s reputation for being tough on crime was a false front. He actually did such a poor job in his prosecutions that many of his major convictions were later overturned.[15] The question of whether he was purposely placed in that position to undermine such cases, and thereby provide a door out for some of the accused, must be considered. His primary activities at the time included “publicly handcuffing mob bosses and business leaders on trumped up charges only to quietly drop the charges later,” demonstrating that, for his own part, Rudy was in it for the publicity.[16]

Nonetheless, with detailed knowledge of the terrorist funding bank BCCI, it is remarkable that Giuliani never mentioned terrorism as an issue in his second campaign for NYC mayor in 1993. In fact, he barely mentioned the 1993 WTC bombing that had occurred earlier that year, referring to it only once publicly. What’s more, when he won the election, and began looking for his first police commissioner, he never questioned the candidates about terrorism. For someone who had made a career both before 1993, and after 9/11, as a terrorist fighter, it was inexplicable that Giuliani would never talk about terrorism when running for his first elected office. Some have said that it was his relationship with BCCI, and questions that might arise about it, that kept him quiet about it.[17]

Considering that al Qaeda and 9/11 are commonly seen as a direct outgrowth and evolution of BCCI intelligence operations,[18] Giuliani’s link to that network is enough to justify investigating his possible role in the attacks. There are a number of other compelling reasons to do so, however.

Foreknowledge

In a televised interview with ABC News immediately after the 9/11 attacks, Rudy Giuliani stated that he was told the World Trade Center towers were going to collapse before they actually did. This is what he said of the warning, which occurred shortly before the first tower fell.

“I .. I went down to the scene and we set up a headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna’ collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit, got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.” [19]

Problems with these remarks include that, at the time, no one familiar with structural fires or tall building construction expected anything of the kind.[20] That is because no tall building had ever suffered global collapse from fire before and, moreover, none have experienced such a failure since that day. In fact, many architects and engineers still consider it impossible.[21]

In this same interview Giuliani claimed that no one had ever predicted airliner crashes into the WTC, saying, “Oh there’s no question we were all caught totally off balance. No one, no one, no one could possibly expect, uh, large airplanes to crash into the, you know, the World Trade Center, uh, the way this happened.”[22] This stammering statement was not only unconvincing, it was patently false. Those in charge of securing the WTC in the decade before 9/11, specifically Brian Michael Jenkins of Kroll Associates, had considered exactly that scenario.[23]

On 9/11, staff at Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM) also had foreknowledge about the collapse of the buildings, and they warned some people. This was reported by Richard Zarrillo, an EMT at the scene, when he said: “OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out,” and “I was just at OEM. The message I was given was that the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get our people out.”[24]

Fire department Captain Abdo Nahmod was with Zarrillo, just before they were warned, and both had been told to make the OEM functional in WTC7. But, Nahmod reported: “Moments thereafter we were advised by the staff at OEM that we were to vacate the building [and] that they believed there was another possible plane on its way and [we] proceeded down the stairwell of World Trade [7] all the way down to the ground floor.”[25]

In the lobby of Building 7, Zarillo and Nahmod apparently met with EMS Division Chief John Peruggia, OEM Deputy Director Richard Rotanz and an unidentified representative from the City’s Department of Buildings. Peruggia later said “..it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building’s stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.”[26]

Richard Rotanz was later said to be the one behind the claim that a third plane was heading toward New York. Rotanz reportedly got that information from a Secret Service agent who was with him in WTC 7 at the time, and spread the information to OEM leadership.[27]

This is an incredible statement—that “they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse”—considering that no building had ever suffered global collapse from fire. Zarrillo learned just how incredible this information was when he tried to spread the word to the fire chiefs in other areas, none of whom had predicted any such danger. When Zarrillo told Chief Ganci about Peruggia’s startling news, Ganci’s response was, “who the fuck told you that?”[28]

Rudy and His Employees

While Zarrillo was trying to warn people, Giuliani and his Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik were wandering around the WTC site after the planes had hit the towers. Fire Marshal Steven Mosiello stated, “At that point the Mayor shows up. I was standing away from the command post, and the Mayor showed up… I remember the Mayor being with Commissioner Kerik and himself and a lot of their aides and escorts or whatever.”[29]

By the time the south tower did fall, Giuliani and Kerik had already moved away from immediate danger. As they were walking, they coincidentally happened upon a TV reporter who had, just the year before, published a flattering biography of Giuliani called “Rudy Giuliani: Emperor of the City.” This apparent coincidence is what led to Giuliani being portrayed as the heroic leader of the response to 9/11, through a series of “walking press conferences” on that day.[30]

Fire Chief Joseph Pfeifer, who was at the command post in the lobby of the North Tower, testified that, “Right before the South Tower collapsed, I noticed a lot of people just left the lobby, and I heard we had a crew of all different people, high-level people in government, everybody was gone, almost like they had information that we didn’t have.”[31]

Who were these high-level people in government gathering in the lobby of the North Tower that had information others did not have? Reports are that this group included Richard Sheirer, the director of the OEM. It was said that, “He’s the guy Giuliani calls the man behind the curtain.“[32] Others suggested: “Since September 11, Sheirer has taken charge of the biggest cleanup effort in American history.” Whether or not he helped with the cleanup, Sheirer did have significant responsibility in his role as director of the OEM, having at various times “briefed President Bush, Tony Blair, and Henry Kissinger”.[33]

It was reported that Sheirer and others spent a full hour in the north tower lobby, while the towers were burning, but no one knows what they were doing there. The OEM center in WTC 7 was shutdown early and Sheirer himself never went there. Instead, he and his staff went to the north tower lobby and apparently did nothing but waited. Although Sheirer later claimed to have made some calls, “no steps to coordinate the response were ever discovered.”[34, 35]

An Unprecedented Destruction of Evidence

Regardless of who had foreknowledge or what the imminent danger was, over the next few weeks and months there were heroic efforts made to rescue survivors. But those efforts were hampered by Giuliani’s drive to clean up the site rapidly. The commonly held story is that the government wanted to re-open Wall Street, and for that reason didn’t care about the health of New Yorkers and first responders or about facilitating the most careful rescue operations.[36] However, the facts also align with the hypothesis that authorities were in a hurry to remove evidence that pointed to the use of explosives.

The U.S. House Committee on Science reported, in March 2002:

“In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA] BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site.”[37]

The steel evidence, “a significant amount” of which was quickly removed before investigators arrived, might have shown evidence of explosive damage, like metal “pedaling.” But the steel was not the only evidence that was removed. For example, the black boxes that contain the flight data recorders and cockpit data recorders on every airliner were officially never found for either Flight 11 or Flight 175. This claim came from the FBI and was supported by the 9/11 Commission report, but was contradicted by a number of people who worked at the site. Two Ground Zero workers claimed that they helped authorities find three of the four black boxes in October of 2001. One of them, New York City firefighter Nicholas DeMasi, described the recovery of the devices in a book.[38] Additionally, a source from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), said, “Off the record, we had the boxes…You’d have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here.”[39]

The idea that the indestructible black boxes could not be found also appears to be in contradiction to the official claim that a passport of one of the alleged hijackers was found. On September 12th, 2001, it was reported that the passport of Satam al Suqami, who was said to be aboard American Airlines Flight 11, was recovered.[40] Because Flight 11 crashed directly into the middle of the north face of the north tower, and was buried within the building, this passport would have had to stay intact throughout the crash event and then withstand the blast from the fuel fire and the ensuing fires fed by office furnishings (and thermitic materials). The rest of the spectacularly improbable path of the passport is not entirely clear, as the first reports said that it was found “in the rubble” but, later, 9/11 Commission staff member Susan Ginsberg testified that, “A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed.”[41] In other words, the passport was delivered through Bernard Kerik’s police department.

During the five-month cleanup effort, there were unprecedented measures taken to control access to the site. The site was restricted, and photographs were banned, by order of Rudy Giuliani.[42] Anthony Mann of E.J. Electric, one of the primary security companies for the WTC towers, said that, “Security is unbelievable. It’s really on a need-to-be-down-there basis.”[43]

Several people were reported to be in charge of the cleanup operation at Ground Zero. It was said that OEM was in charge, and that Richard Sheirer was the point person for the cleanup efforts. Others believed that Mike Burton, the executive deputy commissioner of the New York City Department of Design and Construction (DDC), was in charge. Although Burton managed some of the demolition and cleanup operations, he later testified that, “Everything was coordinated through his boss Holden, deputy mayors and the mayor.”[44]

The City hired five construction companies to handle the cleanup and the site was divided up among them. The five companies were AMEC Construction Management, Bovis Lend Lease, Turner Construction, Tully Construction and Tishman Construction.

Other sub-contractors were hired to complete the actual debris removal. Most of these companies were suspected of being associated with organized crime. Some were reportedly linked to the Colombo crime family, including Civetta Cousins, and Yonkers Contracting. Others were associated with the Luchese crime family.

The cleanup operations were ultimately consolidated under the control of two of the primary contractors: AMEC Construction Management and Bovis Lend Lease. At the time of the 9/11 attacks, the CEO of AMEC Construction was Peter Janson, a long-time business associate of Donald Rumsfeld. Under Janson’s leadership, AMEC had just completed a $258 million refurbishment of Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, exactly where AA Flight 77 impacted the building.[45]

Debris Removal and Theft

The debris removed from Ground Zero was either hauled away on trucks or shipped away on barges. Despite the effort to rapidly dispose of the steel and sell it a bargain price, the WTC debris was considered highly sensitive. At first the trucks were tracked using a paper-based system, and later GPS devices were fixed to each truck with “antennas to monitor location, cellular wireless antennas to communicate, and multiple I/Os to track vehicle signals from engine systems.”[46] Apparently it was important for officials to know not only where the trucks were at any given time, but also the status of the engine. As for the barges, the process was setup “in record time,” in order to “transport debris to the city’s Fresh Kills landfill and to recycling sites, all scrutinized by the Corps of Engineers.”[47]

As the debris was received at Fresh Kills landfill, it was sorted carefully. This sorting process was supervised by federal agents, and described in this way: “Teams of officers and agents watch as the rubble is sifted down to a fine ashy silt that they then rake through by hand.”[48] More than a year later, FBI agents reported the theft of some of this debris at the Fresh Kills site. It was discovered that Evidence Recovery Teams (ERTs) involved in the sorting process stole pieces of debris, and kept or disposed of them. This removal of debris was condoned and encouraged by the FBI agents in charge.

Pat D’Amuro, later an employee of Giuliani Partners, was involved in the theft of WTC debris from the Fresh Kills site. D’Amuro had specifically requested that certain kinds of items be kept for his retrieval, ostensibly so that he could give them away as mementos to various dignitaries.

D’Amuro had been the counterterrorism chief in the FBI’s New York City office since 1997 and was put in charge of the PENTTBOM investigation just after the 9/11 attacks.[49] PENTTBOM stood for Pentagon/Twin Towers Bombing and was notable for the rapidity in which the case was solved. U.S. authorities claimed to have had no knowledge of or ability to stop the 9/11 attacks yet the FBI was able to identify all nineteen alleged hijackers within 72 hours.[50]

Questions About Giuliani’s Role

In the days following 9/11, Giuliani downplayed the health effects of the air in the areas surrounding Ground Zero. He said, in the first month after the attacks, “The air quality is safe and acceptable.”[51] That was not the case and thousands of first responders have paid for such false claims with their health and their lives.

Firefighter and police unions have since criticized Giuliani over the issue of protective equipment and illnesses after the attacks.[52] An October 2001 study by the National Institute of Environmental Safety and Health confirmed that workers in the clean-up operations lacked adequate protective equipment.[53] A letter from the International Association of Fire Fighters in 2007 suggested that Giuliani rushed to end the victim recovery effort after gold and silver had been recovered from World Trade Center vaults. The letter stated that “Mayor Giuliani’s actions meant that fire fighters and citizens who perished would either remain buried at Ground Zero forever, with no closure for families, or be removed like garbage and deposited at the Fresh Kills Landfill.”[54]

During 9/11 Commission hearings, victims’ family members interrupted to demand answers on another Giuliani-related scandal. They wanted an explanation from Giuliani for the first responders’ lack of working radios. The radios used by firefighters in the WTC were a concern, and were actually known by NYC officials to be faulty as early as 1993.[55]

By April 2007, Giuliani had been forced to limit his appearances in New York City due to the increasing protests by family members of 9/11 victims, particularly police, fire and other emergency workers.[56] A general campaign sponsored by The International Association of Firefighters followed, aimed at exposing Giuliani as a fraud with respect to his 9/11 activities.[57]

All of this points to the need to investigate Rudy Giuliani with respect to the environmental crimes of 9/11. His actions and decisions related to the environmental crimes imply that he was hiding something greater, however. What needed to be hidden was evidence of the demolition of the WTC buildings.

During the cleanup of Ground Zero there were many indications that the public was being deceived. These included the discovery of foreknowledge about the destruction that originated with Rudy Giuliani and his OEM staff. Additionally, the steel was destroyed in an unprecedented manner and the black boxes were officially reported as not being found when it was clear that they had been. The restrictions on FEMA investigators and on photographers and the extensive site security are all indications that something was being hidden.

These facts provide additional reasons to suspect that explosive materials were being removed or destroyed during the cleanup. Those who were in control of Ground Zero certainly had the means and opportunity to dispose of any evidence of explosives. The opportunity came in the form of access to the highly secure site, as well as the authority to hire suspected crime syndicate companies to perform the actual cleanup. Theft of evidence by FBI agents at Fresh Kills landfill provides yet more suspicion that remnants of explosive devices were being removed.

Perhaps not surprisingly, those involved with the cleanup had strong links to Saudi Arabia. This included Giuliani, whose law firm represented the Saudi-funded BCCI shortly after Giuliani led enforcement actions against that terrorist network. It also included Bernard Kerik and the British construction companies AMEC and Bovis. Kerik worked for the Saudi royal family for years and AMEC and Bovis had done significant work for the Kingdom. AMEC also went on to win enormous contracts in Iraq.[58]

Rudy Giuliani can be brought up on charges today for his participation in the deception and negligence that led to the deaths and illness of so many workers at Ground Zero. However, his actions in that regard, and his personal history, point to the possibility that he was engaged in greater crimes related to 9/11.

There is no question that 9/11 provided this publicity-greedy man the ideal opportunity to grow a legend around his perceived response to the attacks. But Giuliani’s legend has faded into suspicions that he should be investigated for possible involvement in the crimes. His selection for a high-level cabinet post could re-invigorate interest in those suspicions.

[23] In 1993 Kroll Associates, an investigative and security consulting firm headquartered in New York, was asked by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owner and manager of the World Trade Center at the time, to assist it in dealing with the aftermath of the terrorist bombing that took place in February of that year and to help design new security measures. This report’s Principal Investigator, Brian Michael Jenkins, was then Deputy Chairman of Kroll and led the analysis of future terrorist threats and how they might be addressed. The report specifically considered the possibility of “terrorists deliberately crashing a plane into the towers.” http://transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/research/publications/documents/Sept11.book.htm

]]>https://digwithin.net/2016/11/26/giuliani/feed/5ultruthrudyRemembering Frank Leggehttps://digwithin.net/2016/10/29/remembering-frank-legge/
https://digwithin.net/2016/10/29/remembering-frank-legge/#commentsSat, 29 Oct 2016 11:34:21 +0000http://digwithin.net/?p=1237Continue reading →]]>Scientist and scholar Frank Legge passed away on October 20th 2016. Frank was a leader of the international 9/11 Truth Movement. He had been a co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies and a founding member of both Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice and Scientists for 9/11 Truth. His contributions to research into 9/11 will be remembered as among the most important in history.

Frank had a long and fulfilling life before and beyond the events of 9/11. He was a husband, father, and grandfather as well as a farmer, pilot, research scientist, and entrepreneur.

After obtaining a Diploma of Agriculture (Longerenong, Victoria, Australia), Frank spent his early years as an agricultural employee, then a contractor, in the state of Queensland. He then obtained a “conditional purchase” block of virgin bush in Western Australia, which he cleared and developed as a sheep and grain farm. On completion of this, Frank moved to Perth and enrolled at the University of Western Australia. During this period he obtained a pilot’s license and acquired a share in a plane, which was useful in enabling him to easily visit and continue operating the farm.

On graduating with a Ph.D. in chemistry, in 1983, Dr. Legge worked as a research officer for the Department of Agriculture for a number of years. This included research into the manufacture and use of biodiesel. He was also involved with the Australian Merino Society in the development of their sheep-breeding index. With a colleague, he then formed a company, Solar Track Pty Ltd, and embarked on a project manufacturing solar tracking devices, based on a patented concept they developed in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture. Lastly he moved to consulting.

This site includes links to many papers on the subject, including those Dr. Legge wrote and co-authored. He believed that the evidence for explosives in controlled demolition of all three of the buildings at the World Trade Center was convincing and that the failure of the U.S. agency NIST to consider this possibility was prima facie evidence of corruption and obstruction of justice.

Some of Dr. Legge’s most important contributions to the 9/11 debate:

He was a prolific contributor to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, starting with the first publication in June 2006. His careful, logical approach was the basis for a dozen articles and half a dozen letters published by the Journal. In October 2007, he joined as co-editor and continued in that capacity until July 2012.

Among his most important articles was an early examination of the fall of WTC Building 7 in which Dr. Legge examined video and graphed the acceleration of the building. This paper, published ten years ago, initiated a series of similar calculations that led to irrefutable arguments in favor of demolition.

Collaborating with Warren Stutt, Dr. Legge provided a study of the data file from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) for the flight that was reported to have hit the Pentagon. The purpose of this work was to show that, contrary to widespread belief among activists, the data portrayed a flight that corresponded with the official reports of the course of the aircraft. Frank’s position was that there were many reasons to doubt the truthfulness of the 9/11 reports but the data from the FDR was not one of them. His hope was that this information would help to unify the Truth Movement as it would reduce the tendency to assert claims, based on misinterpretation of the FDR file, that the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

As co-author with David Chandler, Legge examined the case that the Pentagon was hit by a plane, and that it did not fly over, as asserted by some activists. Again Dr. Legge’s hope was to unify the Truth Movement. This was followed by an Addendum that strengthened the case.

Although a sound scientific approach was characteristic of his work, Legge’s personality was also important in that he was often the most mature participant in any discussion. This is not to say he was merely the oldest but that he was levelheaded and composed in many heated, ego-driven, arguments. That is, Frank Legge was the grown-up at times when it was most needed.

This fact was exhibited in many of his writings and communications. For example, in order to achieve incremental improvement in the debate about what hit the Pentagon, Legge advocated a “precautionary principle,” urging everyone to assert only what was truly known. In order to address arguments raised in support of the “flyover” case, Legge wrote a paper on the Search for Consensus to seek common ground.

In the last decade of his life, Frank Legge had a tremendous influence on many people around the world. He led scientific inquiry into one of the most controversial subjects in history and he collaborated positively with many fellow citizens to reveal the truth. Those of us who worked with him during this time will remember his intelligence, dignity, and respect for others.

]]>https://digwithin.net/2016/10/29/remembering-frank-legge/feed/9ultruthfrank_leggeJill Stein Proved Me Wronghttps://digwithin.net/2016/09/17/jill-stein-proved-me-wrong/
https://digwithin.net/2016/09/17/jill-stein-proved-me-wrong/#commentsSat, 17 Sep 2016 15:09:29 +0000http://digwithin.net/?p=1232Continue reading →]]>My last blog post was wrong. As of a week ago, it does matter who is elected president. That’s because one of the candidates has openly called for a new investigation into the crimes of 9/11.

In a recent statement on the subject, Jill Stein made the following important comments and promises:

“The families and friends of those who were murdered on 9/11 deserve justice. They also deserve to know the truth.”

“Under our administration a new inquiry would have access to the considerable body of responsible independent research that has emerged over the last 15 years.”

“We would create an independent 9/11 Commission, not one dominated by members with an interest in protecting the reputation and careers of foreign affairs and intelligence communities.”

“It’s time for a full accounting of what happened, and an end to the misguided post-9/11 wars that are actually making us less safe, not more safe.”

In May, a national poll showed that, “An unprecedented 91 percent of voters 28 or younger favor having an independent on the ballot, and 65 percent of respondents are willing to support a candidate who isn’t Clinton or Trump.”

Jill Stein is on the ballot in 44 states. It’s not clear what chance she has given the serious, inherent problems with the U.S. voting process and electronic voting machines. But she is the only candidate discussing what matters to the American people as opposed to what matters to the ruling oligarchy.

As Gore Vidal once said, “There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat.” Moving away from that sad and dangerous state of affairs will not be easy but supporting courageous voices in the national discussion helps. To that end, people who want real change need to send the oligarchs a strong message on November 6 by supporting Jill Stein and the Green Party.

]]>https://digwithin.net/2016/09/17/jill-stein-proved-me-wrong/feed/15ultruthjill-stein-1Nine Reasons Why It Doesn’t Matter Who Is Presidenthttps://digwithin.net/2016/07/30/president/
https://digwithin.net/2016/07/30/president/#commentsSat, 30 Jul 2016 12:35:58 +0000http://digwithin.net/?p=1219Continue reading →]]>The recent presidential nominations in the U.S. reflect the inability of Americans to understand and drive political change. Those nominations also demonstrate why it no longer matters who is nominated because candidates who make it this far don’t actually challenge the status quo. For example, here are nine important facts that all such candidates avoid.

In videos once held secret by the U.S. government, firefighters told us that there were explosives in the WTC buildings.

Citizen scientists have published peer-reviewed articles showing that incendiary materials were present during the destruction of the WTC buildings. Such articles can be found here, and here, and here, and here. No one has been able to dismiss that research or the evidence supporting it.

Thousands of degreed and licensed building professionals have seen the evidence and risked their careers in calling for a new investigation.

There has been no response to the seven facts listed above from the government, academia, or law enforcement.

None of the presidential candidates, or the current president, will say anything about the facts listed above.

If nearly 3,000 people can be murdered in a terrorist event and no one cares how it happened or who did it, then it does not matter who is president. Americans will not remain safe or free by pandering to superficial differences between oligarchs while ignoring real threats to freedom and social consciousness.

]]>https://digwithin.net/2016/07/30/president/feed/18ultruthTrumpBClintonFive Revelations From the 9/11 Joint Inquiry’s 28 Pageshttps://digwithin.net/2016/07/16/five-revelations-28-pages/
https://digwithin.net/2016/07/16/five-revelations-28-pages/#commentsSat, 16 Jul 2016 13:03:15 +0000http://digwithin.net/?p=1202Continue reading →]]>The missing 28 pages from the U.S. Congressional Joint Inquiry into intelligence activities related to 911 were finally released to the public. These pages do not reveal a lot of new information but what is new strengthens lines of investigation that need to be followed-up. Here are five examples.

The 28 pages say a lot about two men—Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassnan. The pages hint at the idea that Al-Bayoumi and Bassnan, who sponsored some of the alleged hijackers in the U.S., were Saudi intelligence agents or assets. Although this is not new, the pages also mention that both of them worked closely with the Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission (SACM). That should bring investigators back to the WTC security company Stratesec, which held its annual meetings in SACM offices.

The SACM was part of the Saudi Embassy run by then-ambassador Prince Bandar. The released pages do a lot of hinting about Bandar’s funding of Al-Bayoumi and Bassnan’s activities in the United States. What is perhaps a revelation is that the men’s wives received money from Bandar’s wife but also that Bassnan received $15,000 directly from Bandar’s account.

The pages also reveal that, “several Saudi Naval officers were in contact with the September 11th hijackers.” A related fact that needs more scrutiny is that Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), which profited greatly from the 9/11 crimes, had spent over twenty years building and training the Saudi Navy. At the time of 9/11, SAIC was run by Dick Cheney’s protégé Duane Andrews, who was the most knowledgeable person regarding the vulnerabilities of the information and communications networks that failed that day.

The released pages also make a lot of insinuations about Abu Zubaydah’s “phonebook.” Zubaydah was the first alleged al Qaeda leader captured. The 28 pages repeatedly mention that his phonebook had several numbers that could be “linked” to U.S. phone numbers. Readers will likely fail to realize that in 2009 the U.S. government retracted its claims that Zubaydah had any association to al Qaeda. That the 9/11 Commission Report depended heavily on Zubaydah’s torture testimony is a fact that was quickly forgotten by Commission and intelligence agency leaders.

The Inquiry’s report was built largely on information provided by the FBI and the CIA. The 28 pages show this clearly. What people might fail to question is why the Inquiry would go about investigating intelligence agencies simply by reporting information provided by those agencies. That contradiction was amplified when the Inquiry’s leaders allowed the FBI to intimidate their own panel members by investigating them while they were investigating the FBI. The reasons for these contradictions are probably related to the fact that leaders of the FBI and the CIA are legitimate suspects in the 9/11 crimes.

In the end, the release of the 28 pages reinforces some information that was already available but does nothing to correct the propaganda that the Joint Inquiry produced. The public can learn from it, of course, but that requires looking beyond the propaganda.

]]>https://digwithin.net/2016/07/16/five-revelations-28-pages/feed/11ultruth28Never Forget the Lies About Air Defense Failures on 9/11https://digwithin.net/2016/07/04/never-forget/
https://digwithin.net/2016/07/04/never-forget/#commentsMon, 04 Jul 2016 21:08:28 +0000http://digwithin.net/?p=1191Continue reading →]]>People often ask us to “Never Forget” September 11th while at the same time turning a blind eye to the actual facts about those crimes. One such fact is that we were given a string of false, contradictory official accounts for the failure of the national air defense systems that day and the last one given is the most unbelievable.

The ever-changing accounts for the failure to intercept any of the four hijacked planes began two days after the attacks. That first account was provided in an official hearing to confirm General Richard Myers as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). Myers testified that no fighter jets were scrambled to intercept any of the hijacked flights until after the Pentagon was hit. Although Myers did not sound terribly confident in his knowledge, people thought he should have been, considering that more than 48 hours had passed and he had been serving as acting CJCS during the attacks.

A second, contradictory story was given five days later, when the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) provided a partial timeline of the notifications it had received from the Federal Aviation Administration and the responses that followed. The timeline showed that NORAD was notified about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43 am, a full 20 minutes before it impacted the south tower of the WTC. Moreover, F-15 interceptor jets from Otis Air Force Base were said to be airborne by 8:52, having been scrambled in response to the first hijacking.

General Ralph Eberhart, who was commander of NORAD on 9/11, reiterated the timeline in testimony to the U.S. Senate in October 2001 and for two years it stood as the official account. Eberhart added that NORAD was notified about the hijacked Flight 77 coming into Washington at 9:24 am, fourteen minutes before it impacted the Pentagon. He repeatedly told the Senate Armed Services Committee that this was a “documented notification.”[1]

A book released in January 2003 further established this account of the military’s response. The book, called Air War Over America: Sept. 11 Alters Face Of Air Defense Mission, was based on hundreds of interviews with the personnel responsible for conducting the nation’s air defenses that day. It was authored by Leslie Filson, public affairs officer for the 1st Air Force, and had been reviewed for accuracy by all the top brass who were in charge of the air defenses on 9/11.

In May 2003, Eberhart’s subordinates General Larry Arnold and Colonel William Alan Scott gave the third version of the story by presenting a slightly revised version of NORAD’s timeline. They contradicted the timeline for Flight 175, saying that NORAD was not notified of the hijacking until three minutes after that aircraft had crashed into the south tower. This was despite the fact that when asked by a U.S. Senator about “the second hijacked plane somewhere up there,” Eberhart had previously said “Yes, sir. During that time, we were notified.”

Arnold and Scott also revealed for the first time that NORAD was notified about the hijacking of Flight 93 at 9:16 am. This was 47 minutes before that flight allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, at 10:03 am. Obviously, interceptor jets could have easily reached and escorted Flight 93 given this revised timeline.

Colonel Robert Marr, who was running the response at NORAD’s North East Air Defense Sector (NEADS), repeated several times in an interview with investigators that he recalled monitoring Flight 93 during the time that it was hijacked.

It was not only Marr who remembers monitoring Flight 93 in the NEADS battle cab. NEADS intelligence officer Lt. Col. Mark Stuart, who was standing right next to Marr during the crisis, reported the same thing. Both of them said that they were tracking Flight 93. And many air traffic controllers made clear in their handwritten notes from that day, and their personal statements afterward, that Flight 93 was known as a hijacking long before it was destroyed.

General Arnold clarified in testimony to the Commission that, “It was our intent to intercept United Flight 93. And in fact my own staff, we were orbiting now over Washington, D.C. by this time, and I was personally anxious to see what 93 was going to do, and our intent was to intercept it. But we decided to stay over Washington, D.C., because there was not that urgency. So we elected to remain over D.C. until that aircraft was definitely coming towards us.”

Unfortunately, the 9/11 Commission Report came out 14 months later, providing a fourth account, and it contradicted all of the previous accounts and testimony. The Commission’s Report stated that:

NORAD’s “air defenders had nine minutes’ notice on the first hijacked plane, no advance notice on the second, no advance notice on the third, and no advance notice on the fourth.”

That is, the Commission claimed that the military was never notified at all about three of the four hijacked planes until after they had crashed.

In order to explain away the considerable evidence for knowledge about the hijacked planes, the Commission made the ludicrous claim that all the Air Force officers had been either mistaken or lying in previous testimonies. Why any of the officers would spend years lying, in ways that made the Air Force look incompetent, was never revealed.

The Commission’s air defense team, led by an expert propagandist, inserted some new diversionary claims to reconcile some of the confusion. One was a story about “Phantom Flight 11” that was used to explain why the interceptor jets scrambled in the wrong direction and flew at a fraction of their top speed. This phantom flight was never mentioned in the Filson book, which had been thoroughly reviewed by all Air Force leaders prior to publication.

With regard to United 93, the Commission relied on the report of another hijacking as a means of explaining confusion. This was Delta Airlines Flight 1989, which was reported as hijacked that morning despite the pilot of that aircraft saying that he was not hijacked, according to air traffic controller notes. Delta 1989 landed in Cleveland approximately 20 minutes before United 93 was said to have crashed 200 miles away in Pennsylvania.

The Commission’s new explanation, that everyone who thought they were tracking United 93 was really just tracking Delta 1989, is not believable. Reasons include that Delta 1989 never turned off its transponder, was clearly identified throughout its flight, and never lost contact with controllers.

And as Colonel Scott testified, NORAD was notified of the United 93 hijacking at 9:16 and United 93 didn’t turn off its transponder until 9:40, just a few minutes before Delta 1989 landed in Cleveland. Moreover, writer Leslie Filson noted that General Arnold made clear, in his interview with her, that NORAD was tracking both United 93 and Delta 1989. Since NORAD was aware of both, and both were clearly identified, it could not be that Delta 1989 had been mistaken for United 93 at any time let alone for the 47 minutes that the hijacked United 93 was being tracked.

With certainty, the odds are vanishingly small that the three previous official accounts for the air defense failures represented years-long points of confusion for every single Air Force officer who was involved. Alternatively, that all of these military officers spent years lying to make themselves look bad is a claim beyond unbelievable. It is much more likely that it was the 9/11 Commission that lied when it provided the fourth official account. Yet the people who call for us to “Never Forget” are not likely to ever learn, let alone remember, any of it.

[1] Transcript of Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, October 25, 2001, U.S. Government Printing Office

]]>https://digwithin.net/2016/07/04/never-forget/feed/8ultruth911CTerrorism and G4S: Was Orlando Another False Flag?https://digwithin.net/2016/06/13/orlando_g4s/
https://digwithin.net/2016/06/13/orlando_g4s/#commentsMon, 13 Jun 2016 02:35:57 +0000http://digwithin.net/?p=1171Continue reading →]]>The shooting in Orlando on June 12th demonstrated features that were present in many recent terrorist acts. For example, the suspect was quickly killed and the official account immediately attempted to blame the attacks on Islam. However, as with most terrorist suspects in the U.S., Omar Mateen had been closely followed by the FBI. He also worked for a company suspected of engaging in prior terrorist events.

Mateen was well known to the FBI. In fact the Bureau had interviewed him several times and had evaluated his potential for terrorism on at least three occasions. This fact is noteworthy considering that both before 9/11, and since then, FBI leaders appear to have facilitated or manufactured terrorist acts.

Although U.S. authorities claim that Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS “in the midst of the attack,” Mateen’s family were surprised at the claim that he had any connection to a radical terrorist group. In fact, they said he was not particularly religious.

Some have wondered why Mateen posed in several selfies wearing clothes bearing the insignias of the New York Police Department (NYPD). Although the NYPD has denied any relation to the shooter, Mateen’s employer, G4S, has some interesting links to previous terrorist events. And it benefits from terrorism.

Mateen worked for the British company G4S since 2007. Throughout that time, G4S has been what people might call a private, special operations military outfit. It is said to be three times the size of the British military. In 2012, a G4S employee was charged with making a bomb threat at the Olympics. Similar bomb threats were connected to G4S in 2013 and May 2016.

Previously called Securicor, G4S provided security at all three airports affected by the 9/11 attacks. Securicor/G4S had bought Argenbright Security—the 9/11 airport security firm—just nine months before the 9/11 attacks. The company later ran operations at Guantanamo Bay.

These facts suggest that all aspects of the attack, including initial reports of two suspects in the shootings and that someone was holding the door closed to prevent people from escaping, should be carefully investigated. Given the connections between Mateen and his employer to terrorism, it would be wise to consider the possibility that the Orlando shooting was more than a simple lone wolf attack.

]]>https://digwithin.net/2016/06/13/orlando_g4s/feed/8ultruthg4s2An Insider’s Look at the Dulles 9/11 Videohttps://digwithin.net/2016/05/30/dulles_video/
https://digwithin.net/2016/05/30/dulles_video/#commentsMon, 30 May 2016 20:15:43 +0000http://digwithin.net/?p=1165Continue reading →]]>The strongest evidence linking the alleged hijackers to 9/11 was a video said to be from the closed circuit TV (CCTV) system at Dulles International Airport in Washington DC. The video was not made available until the day before the 9/11 Commission Report was released, in 2004, and it helped to pave the way for widespread acceptance of the official account. Since the other evidence against the accused hijackers was dubious and suspiciously convenient for the FBI, which provided it, the Dulles video should be examined closely.

Doing so has led some independent 9/11 investigators to conclude that the Dulles video contains “no information to link its images to AA 77.” Reasons include that:

None of the Dulles airport staff remembered seeing the alleged hijackers at the airport

Dulles had over 300 cameras but no footage was released except for portions of this one video (and no video was available from the other airports)

The alleged Dulles video contains no date, time stamp, or camera identification

The video was shot at a rate of 30 frames per second (fps), which the investigators said is not typical of CCTV videos

The video appears to be an edited composite of shots taken from different angles

Additionally, it has been noticed that the airport screeners in the Dulles video did not perform their duties according to airport requirements. An attorney representing 9/11 victims’ families stated that security agents in the video screened the suspects in ways that were not like those required in Dulles training videos.

Could the video be fraudulent?

Dulles airport security manager Ed Nelson said that the FBI confiscated the actual video from the CCTV system “some time after 10:00 a.m.” on 9/11. Nelson wondered how the FBI “knew who the hijackers were out of hundreds of people going through the checkpoints.” Two days later it was reported that FBI agents had “examined footage from dozens of cameras at the three airports where the terrorists boarded the aircraft.” However, the official account claimed that no such footage existed except for the one video later released as the Dulles CCTV evidence.

Recently, I had an online discussion with a man who managed maintenance of the Dulles CCTV system until mid-2000. His comments shed some light on questions of whether the video is genuine. This was the second of two former employees of Stratesec who made comments on my blog early this year. Stratesec was the security company that had contracts for several of the facilities impacted on 9/11 including Dulles Airport, the WTC, and United Airlines.

Like the first former Stratesec employee who contacted me, Andrew Olson, the Dulles video manager (calling himself only “David C”) is now working on contracts for the U.S. Department of Defense. David C’s comments on my blog were made from an IP address belonging to the U.S. DOD Network Information Center in Washington, DC, run by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Apparently, David C went from a job at Stratesec to working for a “dot com start-up…just two blocks from the WTC” to working at the DIA where he makes comments defending Stratesec.

That these two former Stratesec employees now serve as military suppliers reflects the fact that Stratesec’s leaders also went on to profit from the crimes of 9/11. For example, the company’s chief operating office Barry McDaniel started a police-state supply business with a close colleague of Dick Cheney. And Stratesec’s chief executive, Wirt D. Walker, went on to run businesses with people who have close ties to U.S. military and intelligence agencies.

David C worked for Stratesec from 1995 to 2000, in the role of Senior Field Engineer Technician for most of that time. He was responsible for operations of security systems, access control systems, badging systems, and CCTV systems installation and management at Dulles airport. He has provided images of documents that support these claims. It’s important to note that David C was not operating these systems at the time of 9/11. Management of the Dulles CCTV system had changed from Stratesec to ADT a year before the attacks.

The cameras used in the Dulles CCTV system came from Verint Video Solutions. Coincidentally, Verint cameras were also used at the Pentagon, the WTC and, later, in the London subway system at the time of the July 2007 bombing. It was Verint employee David Brent who reported that he had viewed all the video from over 300 cameras that had recorded the events at Dulles on 9/11.

When David C was asked about the evidence suggesting the Dulles 9/11 video might be altered or fraudulent, he responded with extensive comments, many of which were not specific enough to be useful. With regard to the five reasons listed above, the most important of David C’s answers relate to reasons 3 and 4.

Why was there no timestamp on the video? David C’s answer: Dulles used a state-of-the-art Loronix video software system. The system recorded date and time information, which could not be altered. But the video could be exported without the timestamp showing. This was done in some cases where the timestamp obscured some of what was taking place.

How could the video be shot at 30 fps when typical security video is at 1 to 4 fps? David C’s answer: The state-of-the-art Loronix recording software allowed for “real time” (30 fps) video to be recorded and stored for up to two weeks.

The use of Loronix video software at Dulles was confirmed in a 1998 paper (pdf) from the University of Southampton. The paper states that, with the Loronix system, “Each video clip is fingerprinted through a mathematical algorithm during the video capture process. The fingerprint becomes part of the clip and is used by the playback software to verify the video has not been altered.” Therefore, although the date and time stamp are not necessarily present, the Dulles video file can be confirmed to be genuine and unaltered if one has access to the Loronix software program in which to view it. The video can be downloaded here although it is not in the original format.

It’s interesting that the video did not appear as publicly available evidence until 2004, more than a year after the Dulles system was upgraded in a way that allowed the video files to be accessed remotely. Until the video fingerprint is confirmed independently, the question of whether the video genuinely represents activities filmed on 9/11 at Dulles will remain unanswered.

Additionally, it’s odd that David C knew about the Loronix software but said he had never heard of Verint, the company that manufactured the cameras and owned the Loronix product. He also stated “I think we may have had only two cameras at the security checkpoints [at Dulles]” and yet could not explain how the evidentiary video appeared to be made of shots from different angles. Perhaps follow-up questions will reveal more of the truth.

If the video is a fake, how could that have been done? There are a number of considerations in answering this question.

The video was leaked to the press (at a politically timed moment) in 2004 by the law firm Motley Rice, represented at the time by terrorism propagandist Jean-Charles Brisard. How the firm came by the video was never reported. However, it is known that the FBI confiscated the original video and had shown it to a 9/11 family member who said, “the terrorists’ faces had been digitally disguised.” Why would the FBI take the time to digitally disguise the faces of dead suspects? Moreover, if the Bureau could do that what other modifications could be done?

The FBI made at least one “training film” at Dulles. The Bureau had strong ties to Stratesec as well, in that the company’s president from 1998 to 1999 was Charles Archer, the FBI’s former Assistant Director In Charge of the Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Stratesec’s directors had also previously owned a movie production company called Prism Entertainment.

How about Verint? In 2002, the year before remote access to Dulles video files became a possibility and two years before the video was released, the company named Howard Safir as a director. Safir is a former New York City Police and Fire Commissioner who was appointed to those roles by his close friend (and 9/11 suspect) Rudy Giuliani. Did Safir have any role in release of the Dulles video?

In any case, because the Dulles 9/11 video is the strongest evidence implicating the alleged hijackers, investigating its validity remains important. As shown above, questions that remain unanswered about the video can still be resolved with an objective approach that is open to dialogue and open to possibilities.

]]>https://digwithin.net/2016/05/30/dulles_video/feed/5ultruthDulles Vid 2WTC Security Firm Held Its Meetings in Saudi Officeshttps://digwithin.net/2016/04/11/wtc-security-firm-held-its-meetings-in-saudi-offices/
https://digwithin.net/2016/04/11/wtc-security-firm-held-its-meetings-in-saudi-offices/#commentsMon, 11 Apr 2016 01:34:19 +0000http://digwithin.net/?p=1150Continue reading →]]>There continues to be interest in the links between Saudi Arabia and the crimes of 9/11. Although those links often point back to powerful people in the U.S., the mainstream media tends to focus the story on Saudi Arabia alone. That seems to be due to the fact that control of natural resources in the Middle East is what really drives terrorism. Nonetheless, it’s important to continue revealing Saudi connections to 9/11 because they can help us understand what really happened.

Reporter Margie Burns first revealed that Stratesec, the security company for the World Trade Center and other 9/11-impacted facilities, held its annual meetings in offices leased by Saudi Arabia. That fact highlights the glaring lack of investigation into the men who ran Stratesec.

Stratesec had security contracts not only for the WTC complex, but also for Dulles airport—where American Airlines Flight 77 took off—and United Airlines, which owned two of the other three hijacked planes. The company’s directors and investors were an interesting group as was the chief operating officer, Barry McDaniel.

Walker was the son of a CIA officer and his activities paralleled those of known CIA operatives. Today, many of Walker’s colleagues have top-secret clearances, suggesting that, like his father, Walker has ties to U.S. intelligence.

Stratesec held its annual meetings in office space leased by the Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission. This was at the Watergate office building in Washington DC (2600 Virginia Ave, NW), in suite 900. Stratesec’s parent company, the Kuwait-American Corporation, used that Saudi-leased office as its business address.

Some of Walker’s other businesses listed the Saudi Cultural Mission’s offices as their primary business address in SEC filings. This included Prism Entertainment, which made and distributed movies, and ILC Technology, a maker of “high intensity lamps.” Coincidentally, ILC’s subsidiary United Detector Technology made flash detectors that could be used for igniting explosives.

Walker’s company Aviation General also held its annual meetings in the Saudi-leased offices. What’s more, the operational offices for Aviation General are now occupied by Zacarias Moussaoui’s flight trainer.

U.S. politicians and media have no interest in these and other facts that link Saudi Arabia and the U.S. deep state to the crimes of 9/11. Apparently, it’s not the truth that drives the calls for more information about Saudi connections to 9/11, it’s only the possibility of gaining more control over Saudi resources.

]]>https://digwithin.net/2016/04/11/wtc-security-firm-held-its-meetings-in-saudi-offices/feed/8ultruthus-saudi-flag-537x350Investigating 9/11 and Naming Suspectshttps://digwithin.net/2016/02/27/investigating-911/
https://digwithin.net/2016/02/27/investigating-911/#commentsSat, 27 Feb 2016 15:14:54 +0000http://digwithin.net/?p=1137Continue reading →]]>When people ask me what more can be done to achieve 9/11 truth and justice, I tell them to spend less time calling for a new investigation and more time investigating. Even without subpoena power, independent investigators can make a lot of progress. To help with that effort, here are three steps for an independent investigation and an objective way to evaluate suspects in the 9/11 crimes.

The first step is to ask specific, well-formulated questions. What do we need to know? We need to know things like how explosives got into the WTC, how the North American air defenses failed, how the U.S. chain of command and communication systems failed, how the alleged hijackers got away with so much, and how the planes were hijacked.

Here are examples of specific questions that will help answer these questions.

What more can we learn from the official accounts about transponder and autopilot use on 9/11?

Who was invited to the explosive disposal/terrorism meeting at WTC 7 on the morning 9/11 and what was the agenda?

What do the strip clubs, bars, and other businesses frequented by the alleged hijackers have in common?

The second step is to collect information that might help to answer the questions. Good sources of information include the following.

It also helps to interview people who have detailed knowledge about the events. Most of the people who were present at the time of the attacks and during the official investigations are still alive and some of them will answer questions.

Additionally, useful information can be obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Direct requests to federal, state, or local agencies using resources like these:

The third step to investigation is to collect the information, analyze it, and then communicate it clearly and objectively. Collecting the information is relatively easy. Analysis might include categorizing or framing the information in ways that help to see linkages. Examples include creating a timeline of events or a matrix of people and events, and considering if the new information fits into the existing body of knowledge. Once new information is ready to communicate to others, there are a lot of venues for doing that. A good example is 911Blogger.

Naming Suspects and Evaluating Evidence

As answers are found or proposed, it becomes clear that there are people who can be named as legitimate suspects in the 9/11 crimes. Things can get a bit tricky here and it’s easy to be misled. What makes someone a legitimate suspect? To answer that, it helps to understand three different types of evidence: direct, indirect, and negative. Let’s start with five examples of what I would cite as direct evidence related to 9/11.

Direct evidence

The suspect was in a position on 9/11 to directly facilitate the crimes.

Evidence exists that the suspect did something on 9/11 that directly facilitated the crimes.

Evidence exists to charge the suspect with a crime related to 9/11.

The suspect was in a position prior to 9/11 to facilitate the 9/11 crimes.

Evidence exists to charge the suspect with having done something prior to 9/11 that facilitated the 9/11 crimes.

All of the suspects in my book, Another Nineteen, were named based on direct evidence. An example is Wirt Dexter Walker. As the CEO of Stratesec, he was in position to provide access to those who planted explosives in the WTC, as well as prevent that access from being detected. Walker can also be charged with 9/11 insider trading.

Another example is Ralph Eberhart, who sponsored the military exercises that obstructed the air defenses on 9/11. Eberhart also appears to have lowered the Infocon (communications defense) level just hours before the attacks, and gave orders that directly obstructed the interceptors. He also lied to the U.S. Congress about having received documented notification of the hijackings (a crime).

When one or more of pieces of direct evidence are established for a suspect, it makes sense to evaluate indirect evidence. Here are five types.

Indirect evidence

The suspect had foreknowledge of the 9/11 crimes.

The suspect benefited from the 9/11 crimes.

The suspect failed to cooperate with the official 9/11 investigations, obstructed those investigations, or lied to investigators.

The suspect was an expert in the technologies that were required to make 9/11 happen (e.g. communications systems, remote control technology).

Evidence exists that the suspect was involved in other terrorist acts or previous U.S. deep state events.

An example of a suspect for which both direct and indirect evidence exists is Barry McDaniel, the Chief Operating Officer of Stratesec. Besides having the power to grant access to those who planted explosives in the WTC, McDaniel also had expertise in the distribution of explosives from his days as the U.S. Army’s director of Materiel Readiness. That same previous position makes him a suspect in the Iran-Contra crimes. McDaniel benefited from 9/11 by starting a police-state supply company with Dick Cheney’s old business partner, Bruce Bradley.

Similarly, Ralph Eberhart is a suspect for whom there exists both direct and indirect evidence. As CINCNORAD and CINCSPACE, Eberhart was an expert on the air defense, communications, and possibly related space, systems. He also failed to cooperate with the official investigations, telling his staff to just change their responses to investigators as those responses were shown to be invalid.

Is it enough to use only indirect evidence? For example, is it enough to say that the suspect benefited from the crimes? If so, there are millions, or maybe billions, of suspects. This includes everyone who profited from the 9/11 Wars or the police state policies that have resulted. It might also include anyone who was threatened by the countries that the U.S. has attacked since 9/11: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. That would be a huge number of people so the answer is no, benefiting from 9/11 is not enough to make someone (or an entire country) a legitimate 9/11 suspect.

Is foreknowledge of the attacks enough to name someone as a legitimate suspect? If so, the governments of at least a dozen countries are all suspects. Therefore the answer is no, in the absence of direct evidence foreknowledge is not enough to name a person (or an entire country) as a 9/11 suspect.

For instance, some people are convinced that Israel committed the crimes of 9/11. When asked why they think this, the answer is usually that Israel had foreknowledge as indicated by the “Dancing Israelis” and that Israel benefited because of the countries that were attacked after 9/11. However, as indicated above this reasoning is not convincing and would certainly never stand up in a court of law.

Both foreknowledge and benefiting are examples of indirect evidence. And although indirect evidence can be helpful, direct evidence is needed to charge someone with a crime. Moreover, the direct evidence must focus on what actually happened on 9/11 that should not have happened, and what did not happen that should have happened. And that means we must focus on the specific people who were in position to make those things so.

Once direct evidence exists for a suspect, negative evidence can also be used to build the case. Negative evidence related to the 9/11 crimes includes the fact that some people did not do their jobs, either in defending the country or in investigating the case afterward. For example, Ralph Eberhart, for whom there exists both direct and indirect evidence that he was involved, failed to implement military control over U.S. airspace when he should have.

In the end, it’s possible that only independent investigation will reveal more of the truth about what happened on 9/11. But that power exists within people who spend considerable time today calling for others to investigate or posting strongly worded messages on social media. If we can harness that power and direct it toward the logical and objective answering of pertinent questions, we can make real progress.